On another note, I cannot express enough disdain for John Fox’s decision to kick a field goal on 4th-and-Goal from the 1 in a 7-7 game, early in the second quarter. The numbers say to go for it unless you can’t convert at least 32% of the time. Peyton Manning can convert that well over 32%. The CBS commentator, though, went on a long rant about him making the correct decision to “take the points, because points usually win football games.” When is Chip Kelly coming to the NFL?

Well over? How about double? This season, on third or fourth down with one or two yards to gain, Peyton is 13/17 for 119 yards, three touchdowns, and a 134.6 rating. The Broncos have converted on 24 of 37 attempts - whether running or passing - from those same downs and distances, or 64.9%.

Admittedly, that's a small sample space, so expanding back to Peyton's last three seasons (adding 2009 and 2010 with Indy), he's 45/63 for 323 yards, nine scores, and zero picks, with a 122.6 rating. His Broncos and Colts have converted 86 of 131 tries, which is good for a 65.6% success rate.

Meanwhile, the Broncos defense is playing at its most dominant level in years, if not decades. On a hypothetical failed conversion, there's a very strong likelihood that a turnover on downs by Denver would have led in turn to a Broncos defensive touchdown, safety, takeaway, or three-and-out, with subsequently great field position for Manning & Co.

The other factor to consider is that Matt Prater is no sure thing from inside 30 yards - he's 34/37 over his career, which is a 91.9% success rate, and he's missed two extra points (out of 136) as a Bronco.

At that juncture of the game, the Chargers had netted 30 yards and one first down on 15 plays.

In opting to kick, Fox not only eschewed a roughly two-thirds chance for a touchdown, but he did so at the cost of field position, expected points, and momentum. There was also the possibility of a poor snap, bobbled hold, or a blocked or missed kick, which is never mentioned when those who present the case for kicking, and call it "taking the points."

Later on, at fourth-and-one from the San Diego 12-yard line, 10:47 remaining in the fourth quarter, and the score 24-16, Fox made the same conservative choice.

The Broncos ended up winning by a single score in a game they dominated throughout, and they needed a late onside recovery to help seal it.

We can go on and on about how a win is a win, and that the decisions Fox made resulted in a Denver victory.

At the same time, we can reasonably suggest that had Fox gone for it on either or both of those fourth-and-one plays (not to mention the lame punt from that same down and distance at the Denver 42 in the first quarter), there's a good chance the scoreboard would have reflected the blowout we saw on the field.

Instead, the outcome hinged largely on the result of an onside kick, and what would the conversation be like today, had the Chargers recovered and then tied the game?

The Wisdom of Solomon

Sadly, the thinking Fox displayed on Sunday is still part of the corpus of thinking across the league and broadcast booth. Here's all of what Solomon Wilcots had to say about that matter:

If you're John Fox, you say, "Take the points here." This is an all-important game, and he understands that - that you don't win it in the first quarter; you don't win it in the second quarter. You win it over the course of four quarters, and points is usually the most important statistic in a football game.

So, to be clear, points are most important in football, but maximizing them isn't the best way of winning?

Doug is IAOFM’s resident newsman and spelling czar. Follow him on Twitter @IAOFM

TJ reacts to the Broncos' 34-17 victory over the Ravens in Week 15 of the 2012 season.

@QDoc 4th downs in general. 4th and goal i am with you because those 65% become 7 and teams very rarely make 99 yards drives if it is unsuccessful. Although would like to see what the next field position is for a team who are unsuccessful on 4th and goal.My point is that to discuss 4th downs in general in kicking range you have to explain in greater detail what happened after those 65% successes.

Posted by Steve Williams on 2012-11-20 04:04:16

I was at the game and was groaning when the field goal unit took the field.

I do have a slight disagreement regarding the success rate given on third or fourth and less than two yards, though. Would the rate be that high that close to the goal line? I think defenses have it easier on short yardage when they're backed up and have less field to defend as they do inside the ten yard line.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-11-19 22:12:25

Steve, with all due respect this is the type of thinking that can doom a team.

Tell you what. Let's play a game, one where we gamble money. (Not sure if you gamble or not but just bear with me for a second.) We have 100 rounds. Or 1000 a rounds. However many you want. The more the better.

We'll use a random number generator that kicks out a number between 1-100. Any time it's 91 or less, you get 3 points. Any time it's 65 or less, I get 6 points. (I'll be a pal and leave the extra point out of the equation.)

I'll wager as much or as little as you would like on the game, and here's why:Your expected points in every round is 2.73 (3 * .91)My expected points in every round is 3.9 (6 * .65)

Doesn't matter if the player is aggressive or conservative. All else being equal, I'll take the 3.9 points over 2.73 every time.

Posted by QDoc on 2012-11-19 20:39:44

Did anyone not know what we were getting with John Fox? The good old boy papa bear thing is fine for this group with PM and Stokely doing the heavy mental lifting. Of course we don't go for it there. Of course we ground and pound. It's John Fox. As long as JE is getting the good players we can be as good as that Carolina team Fox took to the Super Bowl, with a much better QB. If the player pipeline dries up we'll go 2-14. Either way he remains likeable.

Posted by Ben Duke on 2012-11-19 20:11:28

Lets see....turnaround a club from 4-12 to the Elite 8 in one year - Lame?; suggest to Elway we seek Manning -Lame?; take a new DC/system; new QB/ new offense; a shit load of new players and move them to the top 4 NFL ish in 10 games - Lame?; earn the respect for your "style" with ALL the players and not micromanage the coordinators while they get the most out of their players -Lame?; make it a priority to put players in position to win using their strengths and adapt through the season? Lame; put up a winning record after a shakedown of all the new stuff and folks - Lame?; WIN the football game = Lame? and all you can do is split hairs about judgement calls on points vs 4th n short? Even if wrong, you expect Fox to be perfect? Hows that vision from the cheap seats with 20/20 hindsight? Sometimes I think you'd like to to be Jerry Jones with a mic to the Coach and QB during the games...you guys write great stuff here and I enjoy reading it every day... but sometimes I think your perspective is outta whack and a lil too ego driven. Sure the stats say make another call...maybe...but the headline reads like its for a losing team...where it belongs.

Posted by denverkewl on 2012-11-19 19:17:17

Personally I couldn't disagree more with the concept of guarding against the outlier. The less likely an outcome is the less I pay it heed. By definition an outlier is rare, so I don't pay too much attention to them, unless their impact happens to be extreme. In my experiences outlying possibilities merely serve to confuse and distract the decision making process, which works best when one focuses on the most likely outcomes.

To use your analogy, SD driving the length of the field after a failed 4th and goal from the one and scoring a field goal is extremely unlikely and doesn't have a insurmountable impact to the game. That makes it a relatively minor consideration compared to the.

Regarding your second point at the end of your post; you're correct that a complimentary example exists for every statistical claim. But that's true for all statistical claims, which is why those bits of anecdotal evidence don't really help the decision making process. For every x times a team settles for a field goal there are y examples of where it would have turned the game in their favor had they gone for a touch down as well. But there's no way to know which outcome you're going to get when you're making the decision*, so the question shouldn't be whether there's a counter example to the statistics for a given argument, but rather, how likely is that negative outcome in the scenario at hand, and what impact would it have to the game thus far?

*there's also no way to know what's going to happen later in the game, so the speculation about how an absent FG in the 2nd quarter impacts the implications of an onside kick in the 4th quarter is not relevant to a discussion of the decision making process for the play in question.

Posted by Hercules_Rockefeller on 2012-11-19 17:23:09

Even though Manning has an outstanding conversion percentage on 3rd or 4th down with 1-2 yards to go, you have to assume that this % will be slightly below his career averages as passing from the 1 in such a tight space becomes more difficult.

Still it is an easy decision to go for it. When the announcer went on his rants about how points win take the 3 I kept thinking well points win so why not go for double 3?

Posted by Ryan Josephson on 2012-11-19 17:16:27

Yes it is 65% success rate and that is good but turnovers could follow that, bad snaps and loss of field position could follow that and there is no guarantee they will turn into points even if you have got the 1st down.

91% of the decisions to kick directly turn into points.

Posted by Steve Williams on 2012-11-19 17:09:13

I don't believe this has been mentioned.

How many times did San Diego's D jump offsides during Sunday's game? I think there were at least three offsides penalties.

So why not line up the offense and have Peyton do a hard count or something similar? I'm willing to bet SD jumps offsides on at least one of those occasions and you get a free set of downs.

Posted by Bob on 2012-11-19 16:54:32

There's very little chance the Broncos could have converted by running the ball - the last few years they've been terrible running for short yardage. How many third or fourth and ones have they tried running and failed? If you had the Steelers' power running game, you may make a different decision.

So you're looking at trying to pass for it. SD was playing good defense, getting good pressure on Manning (including sacking him). Manning was not as sharp as usual (just had a deflection intercepted for a TD, another deflection on a short pass happened later). He wasn't hitting those short passes with precision in this game, receivers weren't getting open as easily.

You can't blindly play percentages - in my book, gut reactions by the head coach are preferable, and most of the time I agree with Fox.

Posted by billyricky on 2012-11-19 16:50:13

Good thing Moreno's best games have come against the Chiefs

Posted by generic internet commentor on 2012-11-19 15:20:24

I agreed with the decision. Our offense wasn't clicking on all cylinders, and we just lost McGahee who likely could've punched it in.

Posted by generic internet commentor on 2012-11-19 15:19:53

Douglas Lee The players are loss avers just as much as the coach is. This means that the loss of expected points is going to have a bigger impact than the gain of expected points. No it's not rational but it is human nature.

Posted by Fan in Exile on 2012-11-19 15:18:30

With a tackle for loss machine like Miller even without advanced stats my gut said going for it would be the right decision.

Next three chargers plays all went for no gain. I know it doesn't work like that but you're playing to your strength: giving a manning a chance and then turning it over to miller in a worse case.

Although I have less of a problem with the second decision.

Posted by Mike Birtwistle on 2012-11-19 15:07:36

This is Knowshon's last chance. I hope he does something with it.

Posted by schmendrick12 on 2012-11-19 15:06:35

Yep, bad news. Basically out til playoffs (presuming they do make playoffs). :(

Why not consider the (very likely) possibility that going for it results in a touchdown? What's the tone of the game then?

Posted by Douglas Lee on 2012-11-19 15:03:11

Good think Moreno has fresh legs and the chiefs have a horrendous team.

Posted by Truman Jensen on 2012-11-19 15:02:57

OT: McGahee torn MCL! Per Adam Schefter

Out 6-8 weeks....

Posted by magster on 2012-11-19 14:51:56

Just wondering: suppose SD jumped offside on Prater's chipshot and Denver has it 4th and goal for one half yard line. Do you take the points off the board & go for it? Does that change the percentages? What if the penalty occurs with the 3 yard line as the LOS & you get the ball 4th and goal from the 1 1/Broncologist yd line. Do you take points off the board? I say no. Take the points, get the ball back and score again. (Which, incidentally, is what happened.)

Posted by Hawken14 on 2012-11-19 14:49:40

While it is tough to watch and, at this point in our probability-proliferated sports era, it actually goes against your instincts not to go for it ... Isn't there something to be said for guarding against the outlier? Let me add another hypothetical: say Denver fails to convert, then SD scores a TD. The conditional expectation of that happening must be very low. Yet it certainly exists, and not in a tail somewhere near infinity. In addition, all else being equal, the absence of that FG thoroughly changes the tone of the final onside kick (not to mention the outlook of SD players as they close the gap during the fourth quarter). Even a coach that hasn't coached Jake Delhome knows by the time he is John Fox's age that shit can get real weird real fast during any game (See: first quarter Denver vs. SD).

Stats and probability are awesome but do you seriously think that 1) John Fox hasn't been totally briefed on the confluence of probability and sideline decision making or that 2) a complement doesn't exists to every GO FOR IT! statistical claim?

Posted by B Scott on 2012-11-19 14:43:03

On 4th and one from the one, when you have a great defense, and Peyton Manning, you should go for it. Great place for play action.On 4th and one from, say, the 20, at the same time in the game and same score and all, kick the FG.

Posted by bradley on 2012-11-19 14:33:27

The only positive here is that most coaches are just as conservative as Fox, except for Belichick and a handful of others. Actually Marvin Lewis has been taking a lot more risks lately on 4th down. I was kind of hoping Manning or Elway would have a conversation with Fox, and show him the stats analysis, I think Elway is big on analytics, being an economics major from Stanford.

Posted by RockyMtnThunder on 2012-11-19 14:22:39

Doug, to go back to your example of last year's Bengals game. It was so obvious that Marvin Lewis made the wrong choices that even Woody Paige pointed out the conservative coach.

FWIW: Using that link to advanced stats, if Denver failed on its first 4th and 1 and Denver had only a 5 point lead, the advanced stats have the break even point at 59% chance of conversion.

Posted by magster on 2012-11-19 14:14:31

Love the Second Helpings, hate the decision making. Let's hope we are good enough in a close game to overcome.

Damn our Defense is good!!!!!

Posted by Broncologist on 2012-11-19 14:06:17

Hawken - Lol and good points.

However, the differences here - we were not playing the #1 run Defense in the League (as Oregon was) and we were on the 1-yard line. So field position would have greatly benefited us if we didn't make it. The way our D was playing there is an excellent chance we would have come away with 9 points if we didn't make it rather than the 3 we took if not the 7 5 minutes later.

Anyway, I like Fox just as much as the next guy but I lost a lot of respect for his style when they went for the fake field goal earlier on in the season. That was without a doubt one of the stupidest calls I have ever seen (dramatic, sure, but it was truly unbelievable when you have Manning as your QB).

Since then these calls only serve to confirm my doubts of his decision making.

In the situation you're asking about magster , the Broncos should have gone for it as long as they thought they had a chance of converting at better than 45% of the time.

Posted by Douglas Lee on 2012-11-19 14:02:02

We could go back and forth with individual game stories to back our viewpoints. The recent one which stands out in memory for me is the Broncos' win over the Bengals in Week 2 of last year.

Marvin Lewis kicked on 4th/1 from the Denver 5, the Cincy 49, and the Denver 48, and lost the game by 2.

He lost the game.

Posted by Douglas Lee on 2012-11-19 13:59:52

The casinos thrive because they play the percentages. Sure, they give up some jackpots, but over time they always beat the individuals that do not play the percentages. The same thing applies in football. On any given decision that a coach makes when the odds are in his favor, he may well have made the decision that did not yield any points. But over time, playing the odds will result in more points than just taking the easy field goal.

Posted by DavidInLA on 2012-11-19 13:51:07

The second 4th and 1 FG attempt still makes sense to me. Not sure what the stats are, but I would venture that the statistical chances of winning go significantly up if you have a 11 point lead versus an 8 point lead with only 10 minutes left in the game. Is there a place where I can check my guess?

Posted by magster on 2012-11-19 13:46:59

Did anyone happen to watch the Oregon-Stanford game Saturday night? Chip Kelly probably was going with the percentages early in the game when he rashly went for it on fourth down. Result? Oregon got stuffed and eventually lost the game in OT. If Kelly had taken the points then, they don't go into overtime and Oregon is atop the NCAA standing still in the hunt for a national championship! With John Fox' decision, remember also, that Willis McGahee was out of the game and neither Ronnie Hillman nor Lance Ball strike fear into anyone's hearts as guys who will get it into the 'zone from the one. As Darrell Royal used to say: "It's easy to people to criticize your decisons when they're playing with your chips!" Hey Goldner- Fox won the game. I've seen a lot of games like the Oregon game where a team comes up empty early in the game and dearly wishes they'd have taken the points when they were there.

Posted by Hawken14 on 2012-11-19 13:36:50

It's amazing to me that so many coaches still make decisions based upon gut instincts and the way things used to be. With Moneyball out there and so many statistical sports books and sites, I would think that a coach would tell the media he made his decision because the odds were in favor but whatever the percentage was. I'm glad that IAOFM is harping on this issue. It really needs to change.